Talk:Human genetics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

the human genome project is the newest upcoming discovery and milestone that mankind has imprinted in the sands of time .

This is the worst article on wikipedia. someone fix it.

It's pretty bad, but it doesn't touch the suckiness of Star Wars fan films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernerd 10 (talk • contribs) 16:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Its amazing how many 'worst' articles there are on wikipedia, or is it possible there are a large number of hyperbolic critics. Wikipedia has guidelines on the code of conduct.
I think the article needs some help.Pdeitiker 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A genetic-stub has been added.

other article?[edit]

Is there some other article somewhere about human genetics? This one is pretty thin for such a big topic. Jonathan Tweet 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Having six fingers is a genetically dominant trait? That doesn't sound right at all... 71.61.235.84 08:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Genes and behavior[edit]

This is missing critical information. Namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program Not just sterilization but actual killing took place. Killing would leave a zero chance to reproduce. With the reported 250,000 genetically inferior killed , no one has studied the supposed cleansing effect on the human race ?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

THe main picture for this article seems that it good be better. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrpatel08 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas[edit]

Does anyone have any feedback or ideas to improve on the article and make it better. Also does anyone have any suggestions on the haplogroup maps at the end of the article. I feel like that they don't add to the article. Before I change it, I was hoping to get some suggestions.Hrpatel08

Don't be afraid to do a total reworking of the article, I'm afraid this article could use it and I'd be happy to help. Think about what main topics this article should cover, make an outline of that, and then try fitting the current information to be within it. Here's my offhand version:
  • Description of the standard human genome - chromosomes, sex determination, number of genes, etc.
  • Genetic differences and inheritance patterns
    • Dominant
    • Recessive
    • X-linked traits
    • chromosomal abnormalities
    • complex traits
  • Human genome sequence
    • relatedness to close species
    • human genome evolution
    • "genomics"
Now here's how I see the current article: cytokinetics can go into the standard genome description but is probably more information than is needed. Molecular genetics doesn't mean anything. Genomics can go within "human genome sequence" section. Population genetics is unrelated to this topic and should be thrown out, although within the recessive trait section one could discuss of frequency of recessive traits vs carriers. Number of genes goes into standard genome ... pedigrees goes into genetic differences somewhere... traits (after fact checking!) could go into their respective inheritance pattern categories... and, as you say, the haplogroup should be thrown out.
This was just a rough draft. Already things occur to me that this doesn't address - eg, how does paternity testing work? Anyway, these were my thoughts, I've felt this article needs work so that's why I was watching and saw your comment. Pretty much anything you do to this article will improve it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Next time remember to sign, even if editing anonymously. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heritability[edit]

Should heritability and family association studies be included into the article as well or should that just be left out completely. Hrpatel08 —Preceding comment was added at 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could eventually get included under two different areas - complex inheritance patterns (where heritability would be addressed), and a research section could contain family association studies -- human genetics research should be another top level section maybe? Anything that is part of medical genetics is part of human genetics, don't worry about overlap. There's still a lot of cruft in the current article that needs to be cleaned up, though. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for all the help, the article does need quite a bit of editing. Feel free to edit anything that you feel needs to be changed.

Hrpatel08

Assessment[edit]

I notice this has been expanded well beyond what can reasonably be called a stub, so I have upped it to 'start' for now. Some further readings would be good. Richard001 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple inheritance problem[edit]

Upturned nose is listed as a recessive trait. Uh, seriously? Mannoro (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level of hair growth on ears.[edit]

My edit concerning the "Level of hair growth on ears" was reverted as "unconstructive". You are free to google scientific articles on this matter yourself... 95.26.49.182 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is the responsibility of the creator of content on wikipedia to properly source their information. if you would like to add the bit about ear hair, please find a WP:RS to support your addition. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for updating this article[edit]

I see that this article has been rated as a start-class, high-priority article by the WikiProject Genetics for quite a while. I'll try to roll up my sleeves to update this article. For anyone else who watches this talk page, here is a list of sources that may help in the update process, focused on one subtopic of human genetics (mostly), namely behavior genetics. Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating this article on human genetics and the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on the article talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.

The list of sources here begins with authoritative textbooks on human behavior genetics, and then lists review articles, and then book chapters.

  • Rutter, Michael (2006). Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-1061-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Bazzett, Terence J. (2008). An Introduction to Behavior Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-87893-049-4. Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Anholt, Robert R. H.; Mackay, Trudy F. C. (2010). Principles of behavioral genetics. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-372575-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Segal, Nancy L. (2012). Born Together—Reared Apart. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05546-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behaviorial Genetics). Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).

Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.

  • Spinath, Frank M.; Johnson, Wendy (2011). "Chapter 10: Behavior Genetics". In Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas; von Stumm, Sophie; Furnham, Adrian (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444343120. ISBN 978-1-4443-3438-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Maxson, Stephen C. (10 October 2012). "Chapter 1: Behavioral Genetics". In Weiner, Irving B.; Nelson, Randy J.; Mizumori, Sheri (eds.). Handbook of Psychology (PDF). Vol. Volume 3: Behavioral Neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-89059-2. Archived from the original on 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |laydate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

There are, of course, other interesting topics of human genetics to cover with good sources for a comprehensive update of this article. I have another source list that deals with many of those topics that I'll post here on the talk page in a while. Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for updating this article[edit]

Here are additional sources that would be good for updating this article from the point of view of such subtopics as medical genetics and human evolutionary and population genetics. Your suggestions of further sources are welcomed. The listing here is primarily in chronological order of publication, and focuses on sources that meet the Wikipedia source guidelines for articles on medical topics.

  • Koenig, Barbara A.; Lee, Sandra Soo-jin; Richardson, Sarah S., eds. (2008). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4324-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S., eds. (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51424-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Speicher, Michael R.; Antonarakis, Stylianos E.; Motulsky, Arno G., eds. (2010). Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches. Heidelberg: Springer Scientific. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37654-5. ISBN 978-3-540-37653-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Tattersall, Ian; DeSalle, Rob (1 September 2011). Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth. Texas A&M University Anthropology series number fifteen. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-425-5. Retrieved 17 November 2013. Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Barbujani, Guido; Colonna, Vincenza (15 September 2011). "Chapter 6: Genetic Basis of Human Biodiversity: An Update". In Zachos, Frank E.; Habel, Jan Christian (eds.). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Springer. pp. 97–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_6. ISBN 978-3-642-20992-5. Retrieved 23 November 2013. The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.
  • Barbujani, Guido; Ghirotto, S.; Tassi, F. (2013). "Nine things to remember about human genome diversity". Tissue Antigens. 82 (3): 155–164. doi:10.1111/tan.12165. ISSN 0001-2815. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.

Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New review articles on human population genetics based on studies of ancient DNA[edit]

Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in human molecular genetics that helps trace the lineage of people living in various places on the earth. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

Two review articles in prominent journals about human population genetics are bringing together analysis of the many recent studies of human DNA, including DNA from ancient individuals.

  • Pickrell, Joseph K.; Reich, David (September 2014). "Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA". Trends in Genetics. 30 (9): 377–389, 378. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2014.07.007. PMC 4163019. PMID 25168683. Retrieved 16 September 2014. However, the data also often contradict models of population replacement: when two distinct population groups come together during demographic expansions the result is often genetic admixture rather than complete replacement. This suggests that new types of models – with admixture at their center – are necessary for describing key aspects of human history ([14–16] for early examples of admixture models). {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Earlier studies of this issue were based on more limited samples (fewer genes, and fewer human individuals from fewer regions and only recent times). As more samples of more genes from more individuals from more places and times are gathered, the molecular evidence is making it increasingly clear that human beings have been moving back and forth across the Earth's surface and mixing genes over long distances ever since their earliest ancestors moved out of the human homeland in Africa. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird article[edit]

The article is titled "Human genetics", but not much of it is specific to humans. And it doesn't even mention how many chromosomes humans have. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical genetics[edit]

I added a section on Medical genetics because it was suggested that that page be merged with this one at one point. I disagree but I think that this section is useful. If you disagree with me feel free to comment here or on my talk page. On a side note I believe that some of the stated dominant traits are wrong and I might remove them if no one disagrees with me. Hungryce (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human genetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worst article ever.[edit]

This has got to be the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. My gosh editors you don't even describe the process by which the parents DNA is (and is not) passed down to offspring!!! I'm speaking of mitosis and meiosis, but I guess sexual reproduction is also usually involved, LOL. Awful. I didn't read it as closely as I could have but do you even differentiate between genes and other parts of a person's DNA?? Do you say anything about gene silencing? Copy number? I think Mendelian genetics ought not to be the core of any article titled "Human genetics", rather DNA and chromosomes (and mitochondria) ought to be.98.21.72.160 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Of The First Image.[edit]

I don't think the first image in the article [1] is necessary, and makes the article look tacky. My reasoning follows:

1: The image is low quality, resolution wise. It suffers from heavy pixelation, even when being viewed at the size it appears in the article.

2: The image barely shows a DNA strand, and is mostly taken over by the background, and a human drawing covering it. The background seems to be images of Functional magnetic resonance imaging results, which has nothing to do with this article.

3: There isn't anything uniquely... "human" about that strand of DNA, except for the fact that someone added a blue human to cover half of it.


I've never tried to delete an image on an article, and don't want to start some type of edit war. I am asking if there is any consensus on removing the image, or possibly replacing it with a new image and text caption. Meec Master (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_genetics&oldid=1219657232"